Phil Robertson "wrong with honor"?!

This article:

Mike Huckabee: Phil Robertson holds same position on same-sex marriage as Obama

sparked a debate with "Tom" on Facebook. It begin with my take on Huckabee's claim:

I'm pretty sure you're wrong, Huckster. Obama didn't imply gays were sinners, unnatural, violating God's will, etc.

I wouldn't swear to it, but I doubt anyone has been fired for saying, "I support full and equal rights for gays, but I'm not comfortable with same-sex marriage." Which is about what Obama said and not close to what Robertson said.

Liberals = panderers?Obama was against gay marriage in 2008 to maximize his vote among younger evangelicals. It was a position of pure convenience.Maybe, but 1) Obama wasn't against gays, and 2) liberals criticized him for his wishy-washy stance. There's no point of comparison between 2008 Obama and Robertson except the most basic one: against gay marriage.

I've criticized Obama hundreds of times for pandering to conservatives. Do you have a point here? I mean, other than "Rob isn't a hypocrite but conservatives are"?Conservatives who oppose gay marriage do so on principle. Liberals who oppose it do so for votes.If the "principle" is homophobia, okay.

That's not a joke or an exaggeration, it's a fact. The Prop. 8 case proved it.

Opponents of gay marriage literally had no persuasive argument against legalization. All their arguments amounted to "We don't like gays because of the Bible," or homophobia.

Your statement may have been somewhat true in 2008. Now it's 2013 and liberals, including Obama, are mostly for gay marriage. Because the liberal principle of equality under the law easily outweighs the conservative "principle" of homophobia.

And as I said, we liberals pointed out Obama's failure to understand which principle was the greatest. Unfortunately for you, dumbass conservatives like Robertson still haven't learned the lesson. And partisan shills like you aren't willing to call him on it.

Hating gays = bravery?I have supported making same-sex marriages legally enforceable for going on 20 years now. I respectfully disagree with other rightists who do not. I am a divorce lawyer. The LGBT community has nothing on my profession when it comes to destroying traditional marriage. Phil Robertson and, for that matter, Chick-fil-A's Dan Cathey probably think I am the devil. So what? Neither man had anything to gain by coming out against same sex marriage but they did so anyhow. They're wrong but they're wrong with honor."Respectfully" means not calling liars "liars" and hypocrites "hypocrites." In other words, giving them a free pass. In other words, providing cover for their bigotry by "disagreeing" in the meekest and mildest terms. Which you do only when *I* post something about gay marriage.

Robertson had plenty to gain in his own mind. Like other bubble-dwellers who listen to Fox News, he thought he was reaching out to the great silent majority of "real Americans." He thought he'd get a parade down Main Street for speaking truth to (liberal) power.

Instead, he learned he's in a dwindling minority of intolerant ignoramuses. So I don't give him credit for being delusional about reality. He thought he'd be a hero and instead he's a goat.

And "wrong with honor" is a pathetic joke. Robertson called homosexuals "evil" and "God-haters." He advocated statutory rape (i.e., marriage for 15-year-old girls). Where's the "honor" in hateful claims, not to mention immoral behavior? Why aren't you denouncing him as wrong, period?

"Honor" in debate means using only arguments based on solid facts and evidence. Such as the fact that there's no reason sex or relationships have to be limited to opposite-sex pairs. If you don't understand this, you're not honorable, you're a stupid idiot who has no business opening his mouth.

Pretending heterosexuality is "logical" when it isn't isn't "honorable," it's a blatant lie. Uttering lies is execrable. And calling a liar "honorable" is basically defending him. Which is what you've done throughout this debate.

Straights love "gay sex"

Let's note that you and Robertson are confusing the issues. Robertson rejected gays and "gay sex" more than gay marriage. Obama did more or less the opposite. He (initially) rejected gay marriage while not condemning gays or "gay sex."

Let's also note that there's no necessary connection between gays, "gay sex," and gay marriage. You can be gay without having "gay sex." You can have a gay marriage without "gay sex." You can have "gay sex" (aka anal sex) without being gay. You can have it without being in a gay marriage.

Would any homophobes allow gay marriage if the partners declined to have sex? Would they ban anal sex among married or unmarried heterosexuals? No? Then conservatives are the rankest kind of hypocrites.

So to claim that Obama and Robertson said the same thing is completely false. Not only that, it demonstrates a remarkable level of stupidity confusion about the differences between gays, "gay sex," and gay marriage. They're three related but different subjects, morons.

For more on LGBT issues, see Duck Dynasty Star Is a Bigot and Two-Spirits Celebrate DOMA Ruling.